|
Time to read Zinn posted:I heard someone say that Huckabee was right that paying for womens' contraceptive care is an implicit admission that they can't control their libidos. Is that the real definition of implicit-because I thought that something has to be implied to be implicit. Maybe conservatives mean that liberals hold that belief subconsciously. But that still wouldn't be implicit, would it? Only if you believe that women don't want to have sex, and the only reason they do is either to get a baby in them or because they failed to control their animal natures. Women have agency in choosing how and whom they gently caress; it's not a binary between "nymphomaniac who uncontrollably fucks everything" and "submits to 2 minutes of missionary from her husband as rarely as possible while closing her eyes and thinking of England" If you realize there are women out there who want to have recreational sex, or even that it should be up to women to decide, then denying them birth control makes about as much sense as saying that covering gonorrhea treatment in men is an admission that men can't control their bodies.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:They're saying that gun bans will fail to prevent gun deaths in the same way that drug prohibition hasn't stopped drug-related deaths like Hoffman's. If guns were banned, you'd probably see gun use go down because guns are not physically addictive; but I wonder if you'd see an increase in the proportion of accidental injury and death related to guns caused by shoddy workmanship and neglected maintenance. Like say, ammo with way too big a powder charge making the gun blow up in someone's face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:You didn't call him out on the "I have Tricare provided by the military" point? this is what i was thinking too, his mind would be blown apart
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:this is what i was thinking too, his mind would be blown apart Of course, these types of people always say out of the other side of their mouth that government health care is inherently substandard. I don't know how they reconcile that with being okay with soldiers getting Tricare. Lycus fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
 The first poster there was given a "Educational Warning" by the mods of the World of Tanks forum. There could be a Freep style mock thread for how much Nazi idolatry and apologizing goes on over there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Not really a crazy political email, but still wanted the thread to have a go at it. Quote from noted concept artist Syd Mead (tron, elysium, car-designer, etc) Full thing here (and the interview as a whole is fantastic, just this one quote that got my goat) http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/01/design-future-ask-syd-mead/#chapter-your-future-in-his-handsSyd Mead posted:“So-called mass transit is the automobile. Bus systems, light rail and combinations thereof are subject to unionized strikes, expensive staffing costs and maintenance of route fixtures and machinery. Dial in aggressive riders who ignore rules of civility and you have a worrisome vector in public transportation. I sketched and rendered the ‘electronic herd’ concept years ago, depicting MTU’s (Mobile Transit Units) traveling in a bunch, thus creating a high-density use of existing thoroughfare routing."
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Isn't automotive still one of the most unionized workforces in the United States?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
Syd Mead owns a Sebring? WTF. At least it isn't the outgoing generation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Not really a crazy political email, but still wanted the thread to have a go at it. Quote from noted concept artist Syd Mead (tron, elysium, car-designer, etc) Full thing here (and the interview as a whole is fantastic, just this one quote that got my goat) http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/01/design-future-ask-syd-mead/#chapter-your-future-in-his-hands Shocking that a presumably-rich person would not understand why everyone doesn't simply opt for the independence and convenience of private vehicle ownership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:this is what i was thinking too, his mind would be blown apart Yeah I laughed when I got to that point. I've heard that same "Medical care provided by the government is bad; btw I'm on Tricare" from family members and when it's pointed out that Tricare is a system run by the government the response was that the Military "earns" it through blood. It's some real Starship Troopers style "service guarantees citizenship" stuff where they are more of a person since they went and potentially got killed fighting for rich people's interests. We regular people don't deserve that sort of benefit I guess regardless of how we help society or how dangerous our jobs are (or if we aren't working for the hated government like those in the military).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Not really political but: what Not as bad as the "Leave cucumbers in a jar on your counter-top all day because it (meaning botulism?) cures _____", but still pretty dumb. I really wish Facebook had a bot which would just post a link to Snopes when the exact same picture being shared is present in the Snopes article itself. babies havin rabies fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Bbbbbut what if I want NATURAL CHEMICALS. Safrole in my chai, and citric acid in my soup. Ascorbic for my health and linalool for my face wash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:Not really political but: Alternately, just post a wall of text of scary chemical names for natural substances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Alternately, just post a wall of text of scary chemical names for natural substances. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:Not really political but: Actually I've seen Facebook do that. Not directly into the comments but I've seen people post / link crazy chain letters then Facebook posts suggested links below it and usually one of them for me is the snopes article.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Isn't automotive still one of the most unionized workforces in the United States? Not nearly as much as it used to be--unionized in the north and not in the south.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:Not nearly as much as it used to be--unionized in the north and not in the south. Michigan is right to work as of this year, so give it a few years and we'll have auto workers earning $12/hr with no benefits too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
A filthy rich car designer is pro-car and anti-transit??!?!?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Not really a crazy political email, but still wanted the thread to have a go at it. Quote from noted concept artist Syd Mead (tron, elysium, car-designer, etc) Full thing here (and the interview as a whole is fantastic, just this one quote that got my goat) http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/01/design-future-ask-syd-mead/#chapter-your-future-in-his-hands
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:Michigan is right to work as of this year, so give it a few years and we'll have auto workers earning $12/hr with no benefits too. Mmmm I can just taste that Freedom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I've yet to witness an argument for free will that is convincing, from any of the determinist, indeterminist, or chaotic camps. For a choice to be truly 'free' rather than a rational output of neural networks, would imply (to me) the choice is made without outside influence or antecedent. That the behaviour was spontaneous and deliberately chosen, rather than the result of complex and automatic 'calculations' by the brain. But I can't 'decide' what neurons fire or what balance the chemicals maintain anymore than I can stop the rotation of the earth; it's simple physics and chemistry. Uh... what? Just because the process that makes my arm move involves contracting muscles to move a joint, does not mean that my arm did not move. The mechanics of how something happens does not change the fact that it happened. My choices are made by the complex computer that is my brain, but it is, well, my brain. My mind is the one that arranges the chemicals, makes the neural impluses, etc, to produce the action that is "thought" and any choices I make are done by making those thoughts
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:Michigan is right to work as of this year, so give it a few years and we'll have auto workers earning $12/hr with no benefits too. Well just think of all the other jobs that will be created once GM has realized all those savings. What's that? "Executive bonus?" No, I've never heard of such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Uh... what? No, your thoughts are post-hoc rationalisations. That's the whole argument. Your choices are a direct result of drives and are essentially predetermined since a lot of those drives are not consciously available to you, and were never influenced by you. You might think you think, but it has little to do with "choosing" what you do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
That sounds like a whole lot of pedantry. My processes, even if a lot of them I aren't directly aware of, are still made by my mind. Saying my subconscious drives are not my own is bizarre. No other person will ever have the exact same life I have lived, so how my mind processes information is different. Different input = different results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:That sounds like a whole lot of pedantry. I don't think you've understood the argument, then. I don't really know how to make it clearer. Thought being post-hoc means that you don't have free will, as the mind would be deterministic. If thought is post-hoc, then no aspect of sentience is involved in decision making, then you aren't making an informed choice as much as you are reacting to heuristics your brain is programmed to use. The argument very explicitly ends with "you have about as much free will as a computer, you're just much less efficient." How is that pedantry in the context?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
This sort of individual ownership 'my brain' is not absolute control. There is no decernable 'I' which decides the neurological activity of the brain which determines thought, meaning total moral responsibility for all actions in all circumstances cannot be true. Essentially do you agree with the legal judgement 'not guilty due to insanity'? If not, why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I don't think you've understood the argument, then. I don't really know how to make it clearer. Thought being post-hoc means that you don't have free will, as the mind would be deterministic. If thought is post-hoc, then no aspect of sentience is involved in decision making, then you aren't making an informed choice as much as you are reacting to heuristics your brain is programmed to use. The argument very explicitly ends with "you have about as much free will as a computer, you're just much less efficient." I guess the main point is that treating subconscious thought as somehow "not counting" for the purposes of choice and free will doesn't seem to make sense to me, it all comes together to make the "self." I'd also argue that if somebody made an AI that perfectly emulated a human mind then it would also have free will so whatever.  Spangly A posted:How is that pedantry in the context? In the literal sense, focused on the small details i.e, "Your mind is nothing but a collection of processes coming together". at the expense of the bigger picture. That all those processes come together to make a human being.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
I've had my fill of the military for the month or something. I'm in maximum don't give a gently caress about ARE TROOPS. I don't know what it is about today, but I'm really sick of the military. Go to the gym, and the ROTC clowns are screaming their loving heads off about some guy's jacket and DID I TELL YOU TO MOVE and other ridiculous and unnecessary disciplinary/appeals to authority right in front of the loving gym entrance. It's not endearing and is probably one of the last things I want to listen to at 6am. Get home and a coworker who was in the same training class as me posts this awful diatribe about how hard he has it as a loving reservist: quote:(redacted) via US Navy Reserve Attached link: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121434 THE MEDIA! Public opinion about the DoD is so harsh and unfair! As a weekend warrior himself, he's bragged about how much he's hosed off during his weekend commitment. Same rear end in a top hat first week of class said to vote for Romney if they wanted to see their taxes go down since 3/4ths of the class had no idea how to declare the standard deductions on their W-4s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I wonder where the hell he drives that sharing the space with aggressive people isn't an issue, because I have to deal with more aggressive drivers in a week of commuting by car than I did aggressive bus passengers in a decade of taking the bus. Or where the bus is so plagued by strikes and such that it's actually a problem more than once in a blue moon. It sucks when someone on the bus is being aggressive or fails to observe conventions, but unless they're homicidal, they're probably not going to accidentally kill my whole family.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
'aggressive riders who ignore rules of civility' is code for poors, blacks, or some other boogeyman associated with mass transit. I agree with his concept, though. We should ban personal car ownership and have public autonomous fleets of 5 seaters zipping around 24/7 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:In the literal sense, focused on the small details i.e, "Your mind is nothing but a collection of processes coming together". at the expense of the bigger picture. That all those processes come together to make a human being. Again, you're kind of missing the point they are making. Accepting free will is the denial of causality. That's what Spangly means by thought being post-hoc (at least I think that's what they're saying). All effects have a cause and each of those causes are the effects of other causes. The neurons that are firing in your brain that allow you to type messages on a web forum were caused to fire by chemical processes that were in turn caused by other processes, on a macro and micro level, in an unbroken chain of causation that goes back literally to the big bang. You may have the illusion of free will because the system is very complex but to believe you actually do have free will is to deny the concept of causation. Now whether or not a convincing illusion of free will differs in any substantial way from actual free will is another question entirely. Also, I guess some people could just shout "QUANTUM MECHANICS!" and give up on causality but I don't think it really works that way but I'm not a physicist so idk
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Again, you're kind of missing the point they are making. Accepting free will is the denial of causality. Nope! That's just one of the philosophical positions on free will; the quantum physics magic handwaving people are a minority in the debate. Many are compatibilist- they assert a definition of free will that doesn't conflict with causality. Most of the free will debate in the philosophical discourse really is pedantry and sophism- one side asserting that the other side is using a silly definition of free will, rather than an honest investigation of the wide array of definitions and theories. But unless we can scrape up some crazy emails from our aunt Sally about Laplace's demon, maybe we should stop derailing- we've been cycling around this for a couple pages now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Again, you're kind of missing the point they are making. Accepting free will is the denial of causality. That's what Spangly means by thought being post-hoc (at least I think that's what they're saying). All effects have a cause and each of those causes are the effects of other causes. The neurons that are firing in your brain that allow you to type messages on a web forum were caused to fire by chemical processes that were in turn caused by other processes, on a macro and micro level, in an unbroken chain of causation that goes back literally to the big bang. No I get that. I just don't see how that in any way invalidates the choices people make. Again, explaining why and how something happened does not change the fact that it happened. Why I chose to make this post and how doesn't change the fact that I chose to make it. Edit: And I will now not continue this topic because I chose to.
Dr Pepper fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
McDowell posted:'aggressive riders who ignore rules of civility' is code for poors, blacks, or some other boogeyman associated with mass transit. I'm pretty sure that's just Minority Report
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:No I get that. I just don't see how that in any way invalidates the choices people make. Again, explaining why and how something happened does not change the fact that it happened. Why I chose to make this post and how doesn't change the fact that I chose to make it. It doesn't invalidate the choices anyone makes, and in fact the acceptance of the notion is what led me to become a pinko commie pacifist leftie in the first place. There's a certain disdain one learns for the inhuman ways we treat criminals and poor people, for instance, when you accept that humans are part of a causal chain rather than causally privileged. Just World theory goes completely out the drat window and I quite think it's made me a more compassionate person. I used to be an Objectivist, and the reason I changed was someone de constructing deontological rights and the concept of free will for me. Large part of the reason I left the military and started working in charities/non-profits for a while. quote:Nope! That's just one of the philosophical positions on free will; the quantum physics magic handwaving people are a minority in the debate. Many are compatibilist- they assert a definition of free will that doesn't conflict with causality. Can you explain? Because 'changing the definition of free will so it doesn't violate causality' seems like a really weak way of saying 'free will exists'. A free 'will' by definition violates causality; if you dumb down the definition to mean 'rational choices exhibited by a human being that reflects their will or desire' or some such I fail to see how it constitutes free anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Can you explain? Because 'changing the definition of free will so it doesn't violate causality' seems like a really weak way of saying 'free will exists'. A free 'will' by definition violates causality; if you dumb down the definition to mean 'rational choices exhibited by a human being that reflects their will or desire' or some such I fail to see how it constitutes free anymore. It's not changing the definition of free will. I appreciate that for some, free will is intuitively opposed to causality, but that really isn't the only definition people use. For a substantial body of people, philosophers or not, free will isn't understood as operating outside of causality- instead it can be, to give one example, a relative and contextual degree of autonomy, predicated on the inability to predict or control behavior. It's a complicated subject, with a lot of nuanced ideas. Check out the third paragraph of the summary for the compatibilist position. Can we please talk about #Benghazi now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Yeah, this whole debate seems to be between people who don't actually get what they're arguing for/against. The "Free Will vs Causality" debate isn't two extremes of God-Man who shapes reality with his iron will vs. BEEP BOOP I AM A ROBOT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Wapole Languray posted:Yeah, this whole debate seems to be between people who don't actually get what they're arguing for/against. The "Free Will vs Causality" debate isn't two extremes of God-Man who shapes reality with his iron will vs. BEEP BOOP I AM A ROBOT. I always get the impression that free will arguments on the internet are mostly based on people thinking 'free' and 'will' sound like good words and things they would like to have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Either way, the crazy forwarded email thread is probably not the place to get to the bottom of the Free Will debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
Did your aunt have a choice about forwarding that Obamacare wonkameme?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 02:04
|
|